ORIGINAL: Spaldron If you really want to attack someone's stuck up opinion of Tintin then clicky.

Finally a review of the worst film I've seen all year that I can agree with. Thanks ! I don't think it's stuck up, I genuinely believe that anybody who likes the Spielberg film doesn't actually get the Tintin comic books and what's really great about them.

No its an incredibly pompous and pretentious non-review of a great film. Bollocks to the supposed intricacies of the comics and the sad rantings of Herge fanboys, the film is wonderful.

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner You know, watching a film with glasses does draw a thin veil of colour-bleach over it. And I blame 3-D for not being able to take in all of the action and the anarchic knock-on consequences of kinetic impact (I thought the film was really good in suggesting practical effects like the queasy see-saw of moving bunk-beds and conjoined twin ballet of two burning ships mid-squall) . But....do you know what? Not taking it all in the first time added to the want of seeing it again and again and again. I'm cynical about 3-D (I know why this HAD to be done in 3-D) but I also know I'll jump on this in 2-D Blu-Ray when it comes out. And watch it again and again and again. For me, it's first and fore-most a great film....worries about what the medium did or didn't do for it can be completely ironed out when I get it home on disc. 3D's for the event. DVD is for forever.

Well that's why I gave it a 4/5 but the 3D sadly did mean that I was a tad alienated in the first act and the visuals loosing some splendor, which was a shame. Still immensely fun.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

ORIGINAL: Spaldron If you really want to attack someone's stuck up opinion of Tintin then clicky.

Finally a review of the worst film I've seen all year that I can agree with. Thanks ! I don't think it's stuck up, I genuinely believe that anybody who likes the Spielberg film doesn't actually get the Tintin comic books and what's really great about them.

It reads like an obsessed academic (which, make no mistake, McCarthy is) trying to get his head around the idea of earnestness in an adaptation of comics he's been spending the better part of a decade arguing are all about artifice and inauthenticity. The idea of real human emotions in his Tintin movie? Unheard of. Let's disregard that the audience surrogate in both comics and film is probably one of the most earnest creations in all of graphic noveldom, someone whose involvement in a global conspiracy is guaranteed to bring some form of honest resolution. Tintin, from my childhood memories with the comics anyway, has always been a leveller, a goody-good around whom manic things happen, a port in a storm - and while I can appreciate McCarthy's intellectual preoccupation with his reading of the comics, he seems like someone furious that those involved haven't come to the same conclusion as him about the work. This is his Tintin, goddammit, Hollywood can get their greasy paws off it.

I'm looking forward to seeing Tintin immensely (doesn't open here until Boxing Day ) but even without having seen it I can see where that review's going wrong because I recognise the style of writing. It's the same anger I get when I see reviews of Sucker Punch that are intent on calling it skeezy misogynistic trash when it brazenly isn't. It's the same anger I get when I see a Quentin Tarantino interview where he describes the relationship between Zoller and Shoshannah in Inglourious Basterds his "Romeo and Juliet." It's the anger that arises when someone with a louder voice takes to something differently, and while it's fair enough that McCarthy is allowed to voice his concern because reviewing is subjective and no film is objectively four stars or whatever, it's not a review I can put much stock in because it's a reaction so isolated to his person. The telling passage is this -

quote:

Here's a telling anecdote: after the premiere of a previous, equally doomed attempt in 1960 to adapt the albums for cinema, Hergé asked a boy leaving the auditorium if he'd liked it. No, the boy replied. Why not, inquired the crestfallen author? "Because Captain Haddock didn't have the same voice as he does in the books," the boy explained. His apparently naive take was in fact incisive, since Tintin was always premised on a set of implicit borrowings and relocations from one medium to another.

Now, aside from the fact that there seems to be no link between the statement and the 'reason' it's incisive, this 'telling anecdote' basically screams from the page, "I agree with this child." This isn't the Tintin he grew up with. This isn't the Tintin he studied. But it's going to be the Tintin so many others grew up with and that's why it's not a bad review, but an unhelpful review. Because his reaction is, moreso than usual, his reaction.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

Also I'll just note that there's some kind of irony in a scholar praising the Tintin comic books for "immers[ing] the reader in an inauthentic universe, a world whose veneers are constantly being peeled back to reveal inner emptiness," both in form and in substance, and then turning right around and decrying a CGI mo-cap film about Tintin for being too authentic. It's actually kind of intellectually bankrupt to sing the praises of Herge's use of comic-book form in order to depict sequences "not grounded in any credible reality" and then dismiss Spielberg's filming of actors performing actions and then generating computer images over the top of and around them as just "nerds shunting pixels around." If you're going to acknowledge form's role in generating subtext, at least do it consistently.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

Now, aside from the fact that there seems to be no link between the statement and the 'reason' it's incisive, this 'telling anecdote' basically screams from the page, "I agree with this child." This isn't the Tintin he grew up with. This isn't the Tintin he studied. But it's going to be the Tintin so many others grew up with and that's why it's not a bad review, but an unhelpful review. Because his reaction is, moreso than usual, his reaction.

Now, aside from the fact that there seems to be no link between the statement and the 'reason' it's incisive, this 'telling anecdote' basically screams from the page, "I agree with this child." This isn't the Tintin he grew up with. This isn't the Tintin he studied. But it's going to be the Tintin so many others grew up with and that's why it's not a bad review, but an unhelpful review. Because his reaction is, moreso than usual, his reaction.

Because it isn't objective?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army while it's fair enough that McCarthy is allowed to voice his concern because reviewing is subjective and no film is objectively four stars or whatever

Somebody skipped to the end.

Also fuck you Deviation

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

I like soup. Oxtail and cream of chicken and mushroom. And also sweetcorn.

_____________________________

Yeah, that's real fine expensive gear you brought out here, Mr. Hooper.'Course I don't know what that bastard shark's gonna do with it-might eat it I suppose. Seen one eat a rockin' chair one time. Hey chieffy, next time you just ask me which line to pull

Just got back from seeing this. It's absolutely fantastic. A proper old school adventure movie that brings to mind the family action films of the 80's (not least the Indiana Jones movies). The action set pieces are terrific, and when combined with a rollicking good story, a really funny sense of humour and characters that you genuinely care about, it's one of the most exciting family films of recent years. The motion capture, for once, works really well at bringing Herges's characters to life, and there isn't any of that dead eyed creepiness that plagues Zemeckis' recent films. 5/5

I hadn't been too excited about it during the run-up to its release, but after having finally seen it (after a cancelled screening) I can confidently say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Tintin mixes comedy, mystery and adventure in perfect sync, while all the time maintaining a charm that's very reminicant of Indy. And the whole Indy feel is made even stronger with the addition of John Williams' latest, but already classic-sounding, score.

I think it would've been fine without the 3D, but 3D or not, it looks stunning. I'm a big fan of performance-capture, and Tintin just raises the bar yet again. You can see every grain of sand in the desert, every spark in an explosion, and every tuft of hair in the eponymous Tintin's quiff. I do have to say however, that Pegg and Frost were disappointingly indistinguishable as Thompson and Thompson. Not just from each other, but it was impossible to tell it was even them. They looked and sounded exactly the same (and nothing like either of them). It just felt like a waste of their talents. It's Cpt. Haddock who provides the real laughs here, and Andy Serkis is once again excellent. I must also mention Daniel Craig giving a brilliant performance as the bad guy.

Tintin will provide a great, adventure-filled couple of hours for the whole family, and remind you that performance-capture acting is still acting, and it deserves to be recognised as such. Also, Snowy's really cute.

So it sounds like 2D is the way to go (for those of us who have to wait till December)?

My biggest concern with the 3D is that it distracts from the images on screen, and based on the comments here that seems to be the case?

If it's any help, have only seen the trailers online, so on small screen in 2d, bits of it look fucking jaw dropping, and cos certain aspects of the image aren't being forced into a fake 3d perspective the eye is totally free to wander around the frame and look at every little detail,so 2D is the way to go as far as I'm concerned

If it's any help, have only seen the trailers online, so on small screen in 2d, bits of it look fucking jaw dropping, and cos certain aspects of the image aren't being forced into a fake 3d perspective the eye is totally free to wander around the frame and look at every little detail,so 2D is the way to go as far as I'm concerned

Thanks, was thinking this as well Also Im going to be taking my parents and sister to see it when it opens, and 3D tickets are almost double the price (so what Im saying is that Im actually quite cheap)

Expected much more from this film, it looks fantastic and Andy Serkis is brilliant as usual but thats about it, boring story and Jamie Bell was the wrong choice for Tintin. Went to see it in 3D even though im not the biggest fan but it was nice on the eyes.

As it says in the title .....pure Shite but visually stunning to look at. The detail is amazing even little background things you would never take notice of. Pity that when you leave this movie that is all you take with you. It's still worth a glance on Blu-Ray though just for the scenery!!!

I loved Tintin as a kid and the Secret of the Unicorn is probably one of my favourites so I was kind of excited when it came to the local multiplex the other week as I thought it wasn't going to be released until Christmas. But half an hour into the film I found myself still waiting for it get going. Even if you ignore the inordinately long intro sequence and rather dull John Williams score the film jumps about from scene to scene, a trick which the Harry Potter movies did no end, without ever giving you time to care about the titular character. Which is a shame really because where Haddock is Tintin's comedic foil the boyish detective fails to find time to shine by comparison.

One of the problems with this adaptation is that it feels long and is barely saved by the flashback sequence that comes half way through and a breath taking chase scene that by the time I reached the end I felt I wanted to see the cartoon again to see how they measure up.

I am sorry to report but this is sadly another attempt by my hero Spielberg to reclaim former glories and the sad fact is that he still hasn't made a true classic movie since the double whammy of Jurassic Park and Schindler's List.

The Spielberg of the 70s and 80s would have made Tin Tin into a proper rival for Indiana Jones. Instead we are left with a mess. It was exciting in places, and Andy Serkis stole the movie even if his Scottish accent was particularly poor... it was like someone doing a bad Mike Myers impersonation, but he was still fun.

All the best bits were in North Africa and what a letdown of an ending. Very anticlimactic.

I can't see a sequel being made, and to be fair perhaps in this occasion Tin Tin needed a director on the way up rather than someone who sadly is on the way down.

And before you all go on and cite Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, AI etc... these films may be 3 or even 4 star movies, but compared to what Spielberg gave us in the 70s and 80s they are simply not in the same league as his best like Jaws, Raiders, Close Encounters, ET, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List.

Even 1941 was a helluva lot more fun than the stuff he has been putting out. It does pain me to say it, but I know in my heart it is true. Look at how he botched War of the Worlds. Great first 30 minutes then becomes a movie that could have been made by a journeyman director rather than Spielberg.

Absolutely loved it! Entirely expected to be disappointed but this movie is a masterpiece, and having lost a certain amount of respect for Spielberg in previous efforts, Tintin has gone a long way to restoring my faith in him as a director. Was thoroughly entertained throughout and didn't once look at my watch. Believe me, this is very rare indeed. Well done everyone involved, a truly outstanding achievement.

I've decided to give this movie another set of 5 stars back to back, so to appease the tragic short sightedness of the streams of negative reviews below. I mainly decided to do this so that I could retort to a particular comment about John Williams' score being dull! I'm sorry whoever you are, but this couldn't be further from the truth. It was energetic, intriguing and really captured the spirit of Tintin's adventure, making it the perfect accompaniment to the film. I mean 'dull', come on. It's John William's for goodness sake! The man's incapable of producing a dull soundtrack, that's literally the most ridiculous description anyone could possibly ever choose to describe a John Williams score. I take umbrage with the comment about the opening credits too. After all, they were fun and enjoyable, making a spectacle out of what would have otherwise been the same old standard and very boring intro. I mean, what would you prefer?? Perhaps a 'dull' blank screen with some 'dull' music in the background, accompanied by some 'dull' still imagery and some equally 'dull' scrolling credits? What a thing to complain about!

I don't know what people were watching below, but it obviously wasn't Tintin because they don't know what they are talking about. People saying it took too long to get going. WHAT?! I was literally catapulted into action from the word go! Comfortably hopped along and the action kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. As I born in the 90's when Tintin had disappeared from the screens. I missed out on the adventures and I hadn't heard of the books, too young to know! What I wonderful start to a revival, loved it and have now become a big Tintin fan! Don't listen to anyone below who has given it one to three stars. The best directors and actors did a very good job! And not to mention the music score.

The Adventures Of TinTin - The Secret Of The Unicorn It did take a "while" but here it finally is: the very long expected TinTin film. Luckily it was well worth the wait. From the brilliant Hitchcock/Saul Bass-style opening titles up until the very comicy-endin: 106 minutes long it is enjoyment with mouth wide open.

It looks absolutely stunning, the cut-away`s are superb and (in my opinion the biggest win of the film) finally the "dead eyes" in the characters are gone. At last we get to see emotions in them. The way the three stories are brought together into one is very well done. Personally I never noticed that originally there were 3 different stories. But maybe that was because I didn`t read the TinTin comics involved in this film...

Hergé wanted that only Spielberg would bring his beloved reporter to the silver screen. When you see the finished it is clear why: this obviously is a true labour of love and highly recommended for everyone, also for the uninitiated in the comics. I really hope that the two already announced sequels will be made!

I realised towards the end that I'd spent the whole film grinning like an idiot - it's just so much fun.

And, while some part of me still isn't sure photo-realism was the right choice for Tintin, that part of me is clearly wrong. It was bloody impressive and the best "photo-real" animation I've seen yet, with Spielberg's imaginative use of the medium (in terms of both art style and performance capture) showing it to be a technique that just needs the right people and vision to guide it to maturity.

The scene transitions and action set pieces were examples of this, but the most astounding thing for me was a close-up of Captain Haddock in which you can tell he's making eye contact with Tintin because his eyes are realistically, rapidly-yet-subtly shifting from side to side between each of Tintin's eyes.

I realised towards the end that I'd spent the whole film grinning like an idiot - it's just so much fun.

And, while some part of me still isn't sure photo-realism was the right choice for Tintin, that part of me is clearly wrong. It was bloody impressive and the best "photo-real" animation I've seen yet, with Spielberg's imaginative use of the medium (in terms of both art style and performance capture) showing it to be a technique that just needs the right people and vision to guide it to maturity.

The scene transitions and action set pieces were examples of this, but the most astounding thing for me was a close-up of Captain Haddock in which you can tell he's making eye contact with Tintin because his eyes are realistically, rapidly-yet-subtly shifting from side to side between each of Tintin's eyes.

Do you really think "photo-realism" is what animation is all about ? There are a billion design opportunities with animation and then to recreate characters that look and move like actors strikes me as thoroughly pointless. The "photo-reral" animation as you call it isn't actually animation. It's performance capture which I regard as the lazy approach, by cutting out the skills the animators bring to animation films. Instead you have Andy Serkis overacting like mad to look like a cartoon. Stupid really.

Unlike the Pixar films which take a more stylised approach this will date badly, just like previous performance capture films.